[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Versioning/release policy proposal
From: |
Richard Frith-Macdonald |
Subject: |
Re: Versioning/release policy proposal |
Date: |
Fri, 6 Oct 2006 17:22:27 +0100 |
On 6 Oct 2006, at 12:04, Dennis Leeuw wrote:
, the only thing I miss is a rationale for the use of the SONAME
with a major.minor structure, instead of the more common major. I
think this would help in the understanding why, and resulting in
less discussion.
I have no real idea of what's more common, but my rationale for this
is as follows ...
1. I assume that changing the major version number is primarily a
marketing/presentation issue
2. I assume that we *must*, as a technical issue, change the SONAME
when we break backward compatibility
3. I assume that our publicity issues and our technical issues will
not be in sync ... we most likely won't want to increment the major
version number as often as we need to change the SONAME.
I could even imagine that you use the SONAME major for make and
base, while keeping major.minor SONAME for gui/back unit they hit
1.0. Just an idea.
I would prefer to try to keep to a consistent policy across all
packages (though for make the SONAME issue is irrelevant as there is
no dynamic library in the package), simply because consistency makes
it easier to understand and follow.